Here’s why Kerala High Court ‘appreciated’ but rejected law student’s PIL to protect identity of accused in rape cases

A bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M dismissed the plea filed by a law student.

‘No reason to grant relief’

• In Dejo Kappan v. Deccan Herald and Others, after detailed exposition of the rights inter se of the media to report about pending criminal matters for the information of the general public vis-à-vis the rights of the accused to a fair trial as well as protection of his fundamental rights, it has been held by this court that media’s right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute.
• It must be balanced against the individual’s right to dignity and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• While recognising the media’s critical role in democracy, this court had emphasised the duty of the media to provide accurate and contextually correct reporting regarding criminal investigations and pending adjudications.
• In Dejo Kappan this court held that in instances where an aggrieved individual can establish that his/her right to dignity/reputation traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution has been, or is likely to be infringed by the actions of the media, he/she can approach a constitutional court which can forge a suitable measure to either prevent or contain the damage occasioned by the breach of that right, by relying on the precedent in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI.
• While we appreciate the efforts put in by the petitioner who is a law student, we find no reason to grant any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

Law student’s plea

• The petitioner argued that as the names and details of the accused are made available to the media, there is a possibility of their name being tarnished even before a trial takes place and a final decision is arrived at in the matter by the criminal court.
• He contended that there is a substantial possibility of the honour and self-respect of the victim being tarnished due to media trial as well as due to the discussions about the individual on social media.
• Even if subsequently acquitted, he said that the stigma remains to haunt the individual for a lifetime.
• Opposing the plea, the State relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, including Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI and Asharam Bapu v. Union of India.
• The court was informed that any order restraining publication or postponing media reporting should only be an exceptional measure which could be resorted to only when there exists a real and substantial risk to the administration of justice.
• It was further stated that such orders must satisfy the twin test of necessity and proportionality, and cannot be issued as a matter of routine or as general guidelines applicable across all cases.